Commentary for Yevamot 213:11

רבא אמר היינו טעמא דב"ש שאין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה וב"ה תרוייהו ניחא להו כדי דליפוק עלייהו קלא דאישות:

and Beth Hillel's reason also is because of the usufruct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the minor's melog (v. Glos.) property. ');">³²</span> 'Beth Shammai's reason is because of the usufruct', for should you say that a married minor may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who after marriage is entitled to the usufruct of his wife's melog property. ');">³³</span> might [indiscriminately] pluck [the fruit] and consume it, [knowing as he does] that she might leave him at any moment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for in the end she stands to go out'. ');">³⁴</span> Beth Hillel, however, [say]: On the contrary; since it is laid down that she may exercise the right of refusal, [her husband] would make every effort to improve her property, fearing that if [he should] not [do this], her relatives might give her their advice [against him] and thus take her away from him.

Explore commentary for Yevamot 213:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.